posted 19 April 2002 12:18 PM
I don't understand this. Everyone knows Iraq has, or anyway had, a chemical-weapons capacity. It used them against the Kurds years ago. I thought the upcoming war was about their nuclear weapons capacity, which they will supposedly have within a couple of years?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 April 2002 12:20 PM
Appeal for action:

Dear Friend,

Please join Peter Gabriel, Annie Lennox, Thom Yorke of Radiohead, Brian Eno, and many other cultural figures in speaking up on an important, last-minute issue.

This Sunday, April 21, the United States will seek to remove Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), from his post. Bustani's crime is essentially that he was too good at hisjob. Under his lead, according to the Guardian article [linked to] below, "His inspectors have overseen the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world'schemical weapon facilities. He has so successfully cajoled reluctant nations that the number of signatories to the convention has risen from 87 to 145 in the past five years: the fastest growth rate of any multilateral body in recenttimes."

But in the eyes of the US State Department, Bustani has been a nuisance. First, he's attempted to treat the US like any other signatory to the body, and the US, not unlike itsenemy Iraq, is unsatisfied with the inspectors he's chosen. Second, he's actively working with Iraq to encourage it to accept inspectors, which would undercut support for a second US-led Gulf War. For these reasons, the State Departmentwants him deposed.

In a meeting this Sunday, the US will propose a vote of no confidence in Bustani, even though it hasn't specified the exact nature of his failings. If Canada votes with the US, yet another international, multilateral organisation willessentially become a proxy of the US government.

Please contact Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham immediately and urge him to "support Director-General Bustani and an independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."

Just call:

(613) 995-1851

Then pass this message on to your friends and colleagues and urge them to write. Since the timing is so close, we need to get as many people involved as possible. And please send us a message at opcw@9-11peace.org so that we can keep track of how many contacts have been made.

A sample letter, drafted by Brian Eno and co-signed by many other cultural figures is copied below, as is an article by George Monbiot more fully explaining the situation.

Please act today to support an important international institution.

Sincerely,

--Eli Pariser, 9-11peace.org April 19, 2002

SAMPLE LETTER--------------------

Dear Minister Graham,

We are writing to draw your attention to the very serious and urgent matter of the impending removal of the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani, from his post. This follows a campaign led by the United States which is ultimately aimed at further clearing the way for an attack on Iraq. If the United States succeeds in its campaign forBustani's removal, it will not only be a victory for unilateralism and a blow to the principles of multilateral cooperation, but it will also mean that the world will be brought one step closer to a second Gulf War.

Admittedly, this is only the latest in a series of attempts by the United States to disengage from, undermine and override international legal instruments and multilateral institutions. We have all witnessed the US's exceptionalism in recent years. It has refused to ratify the KyotoProtocol, and torpedoed the statute creating theInternational Criminal Court. It has opposed the completion of negotiations to create a regime strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, and indicated its intention to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. More recentlyit has "lost confidence" in the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, coincidentally following a consultation with US energy industry representatives. And after the failure of UNSCOM (largely the result of its useby the United States as an intelligence-gatheringinstrument), there are now reports that the CIA has been investigating the performance of Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, UNSCOM's successor.

The difference this time is that the stakes are higher, and more evident. The OPCW is the first ever global regime designed to verify the complete abolition of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration is determined to remove the man who, over the last five years, successfully brought such alleged rogues asIran, Sudan, Libya and Saudi Arabia into this multilateral disarmament regime. Bustani's mandate requires him to bring as many member states as he can into this regime, and for this reason he has consistently kept negotiations open withIraq. In light of the Bush administration's preparations (both psychological and military) for an attack on Iraq, these negotiations are seen as highly inconvenient. The removal of Bustani would effectively mean the closing of one of the last peaceful routes to dealing with Iraq.

Also at stake is the independence of the OPCW, and with it the independence of all other international organisations. Their staff and directors will become vulnerable to removalby a dissatisfied member state, as long as that member state is sufficiently powerful, financially or otherwise. Bustani has repeatedly refused to act on the instructions of the United States in discrimination against other member states,stating over and over that his employers are the integrity of the Conference of States Parties. This has made him a thorn in the side of the US State Department, which Bush and his team are now determined to remove. The US has made unsubstantiated allegations to justify its motion of no-confidence, and has declined on every occasion to provide the evidence, or even to conduct a formal inquiry. Nor has it submitted any document to the Conference of States Parties to support its request for a no-confidence motion.Given the lack of substantive motives for Bustani's removal, the United States has resorted to character assassination in the press. And in order to ensure the success of its campaign, the United States has threatened to withdraw itsfunding of the organisation, which would leave the OPCW 22% worse off, and effectively crippled.

By making its voice heard in Washington, Canada would be keeping open a peaceful and multilateral route to a resolution in Iraq. More importantly, a defeat of the United States' motion would put a stop to the further deterioration of the international system of multilateral cooperation that has been built withsuch care and commitment since the end of the Second World War.

We urge you to take the lead at the Special Session of the OPCW which opens on Sunday 21 April, and to ensure that morality, good sense and international justice prevail.

posted 19 April 2002 01:50 PM
You can fax letters to Bill Graham, incidentally, at (613) 996-3443.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 April 2002 02:30 PM
Just bumping this up to the top again, since time is short.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 19 April 2002 03:41 PM
I don't think that the US government deals in chemical warfare. Chemical warfare is more the work of corporations who sell their liquid weapons to unsuspecting customers. http://www.nsehc.com/index2.html

quote:Chemical warfare is more the work of corporations who sell their liquid weapons to unsuspecting customers.

*cough*

In North America, since the Second World War, chemical and biological warfare research has been first of all the work of -- ta da -- the National Research Council of Canada, and has been/continues to be carried out at the NRC facilities on the Canadian Forces base at Suffield, Alberta, just north of Medicine Hat.

As with just about all other important scientific research, the hard stuff and the stuff that changes our world tends to be done first in the academy or by governments (meaning you paid for it). The Mafia -- excuse me, the corporations -- only butt in once the work has become cookie-cutter stuff.

Every once in a while (regularly in the late 60s) ordinary human beings march on Suffield, demanding to know what is going on there. The eternal answer is that they are doing "defensive" research. M'self, I consider bugs and nerve gas to be deeply offensive however employed.

Oh -- and under NORAD, we just give our CBW research to the Americans. We give it to them.

quote: In North America, since the Second World War, chemical and biological warfare research has been first of all the work of -- ta da -- the National Research Council of Canada, and has been/continues to be carried out at the NRC facilities on the Canadian Forces base at Suffield, Alberta, just north of Medicine Hat.

Also during WW2. Though I have no idea if the NRC was involved. I was stationed on Suffield in 1946 putting in time awaiting my discharge. There was a lot of pretty weird stuff underway even then.There were dozens of 40 gallon barrels of ???? sitting in the open and many fenced windowless brick buildings which were strictly off limits. We, the grunts, had no idea of what was actually going on there but there was much speculation that anthrax and horses were involved in some of the games being played there at that time.I believe that the Suffield base was officially called the Chemical Warfare Experimental Station at the time.

quote: There has been much written in the press the last couple of weeks about the threat from terrorists if they commandeered a crop duster to spread biological warfare agents. Yet few writers have mentioned that these planes are used for this purpose every day, but not by terrorists. Instead, they are used by licensed operators who are spraying deadly chemicals on our lands and on our children.

We don't have to wait for chemical warfare to be waged on U.S. soil by terrorists. Such warfare has been underway for over a century. Every day, billions of pounds of deadly chemicals, many of which were used as chemical warfare agents in World War I and II, are applied as pesticides and herbicides to soil, plants, and people around the country and the world.

posted 20 April 2002 04:01 AM
Vaudree, I'm not clear about the point of your posts here--the information you've provided on the manufacture and selling of dangerous chemical fertilizers and household products by corporations. Do you think it somehow obviates the need to protest the attempted dismantling of the OPCW?

I think the issues you've raised are valid, and important, but they distract from the crisis at hand.

Vaudree, I think it's pretty clear that this thread is not about household cleaners. It's about the US trying to pull a fast one on an agency specifically set up to reduce the amount of chemicals USED IN WARFARE. You know, nerve gas. Stuff like that. It's not about whether or not chlorine bleach is bad for your health. Everything isn't about allergies to household chemicals, believe it or not.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 April 2002 11:53 AM
Hi, Jake:

I'm running on two sets of fuzzy memories about Suffield. I once edited a book about the founding of the NRC during WWII -- it was a collection of letters between Sir Frederick Banting and C.? Mac??? (I'll have to find the name somehow), who cooked up the institution between them by correspondence while Banting was flying about performing secret duties for the Allies (which led to his death in a plane crash in Newfoundland, I believe -- I told you this was fuzzy). They had very high-minded ideals, of course, and the NRC is a brilliant institution in many ways, I'm sure ... but Suffield certainly fit in with CBW experimentation being done in Britain at the time, anthrax experiments particularly.

My family moved to Medicine Hat in 1948. (Did we perhaps cross paths downtown sometime in the late 40s, early 50s? I would have been very short and fat, and I had long ringlets, also fat.) I recall worries in town about rumours of bad storage at Suffield -- I also recall that officials kept insisting that the research being done was mainly on "fertilizer," and really, citizens should think of Suffield as just a fertilizer plant ...

My oddest memory -- I've asked my older brother whether he remembers this story and he says no, so take this for what it's worth, but: in the summer of 1953 or 1954, there was an unusual influx of rattlesnakes into the city. Everyone knew there might be a few out on the prairie, although the local snake population was mainly garters and bulls and the rattlers if any tended to stay on the north side of the river. But that summer they were everywhere -- I remember one caught in the centre of town, and another that greeted a neighbour on his front doorstep one morning.

Now, I would have been maybe eight at the time, but I'm sure the gossip was that something was being disposed of improperly and unsafely at Suffield, and whatever it was was attracting all the snakes. !!! I remember imagining a reptilian pipeline, stretching down to Montana and Idaho and over to Saskatchewan -- Hey, guys! Good stuff in Alberta!

quote: I think the issues you've raised are valid, and important, but they distract from the crisis at hand.

Who was it that said that we first do to ourselves what we later do to others?

quote: It's about the US trying to pull a fast one on an agency specifically set up to reduce the amount of chemicals USED IN WARFARE. You know, nerve gas. Stuff like that.

So what you are saying Michelle is that this is NOT about the kind of chemicals used in WWI and WWII, because watered down versions of THOSE chemicals now appear in household products? That Gulf War Syndrome is irrelevant because that is about what we did to our own? That chemicals that cause memory or learning problems (like round-up), even in the short term, are not benificial to the enemy?

If 9-11 taught us anything, it will be that what is used against us will be our own products with the only difference being that they "forget" to add sufficient water to delute it down so that it kills only small microorganisms and presumambly not larger organism?

Final comment. We don't care much about the enemy - we are blood thirsty popcorn eating couch potatoes most of us. But we can get our hair in a dander if the SAME weapons we are developing to hurt others can become another form of "friendly fire." The Gulf war vetarins with MCS were victems of "friendly fire" with chemical weapons, some of them have died because of it while others live, as much as they can, in a plastic bubble.--------I placed the call - it is scarey, I don't use long distance so I don't know what my phone bill is going it look like! For the record, I am not scared of chemicals, I just don't like being sick and stupid and in bed for a few days in a row. But I do have a fear of getting in over my head financially. But this is too important to let that kind of fear take over.

posted 20 April 2002 12:43 PM
Vaudree, I will admit that I see a funny connection between the nefarious-realpolitiko and the domestic manifestations of this issue (although damned if I can work out a way of limning it precisely).

One of the reasons we seem to be poisoning ourselves domestically so happily, it always seems to me, is yer old garden-variety North American puritanical hysteria about dirt and personal hygiene. That side of "Western civilization," anyway, I hope we never succeed in exporting to the rest of the world. The older I get, the stranger it seems to me. yrs, happily growing grass between her toes ...

quote: my 27-year-old brother died. ... He had served in the Gulf war, and he was very ill with Gulf War syndrome, but he received no help from the government. ... After my brother's death, we were finally able to locate his lost records, and we read an entry in which the doctor had written, "Patient appears to be malingering his illness for secondary gain." I was amazed when I later learned that many other veterans had seen that same phrase used in their records.

and those still alive to tell their story listing Agent Orange, among others

posted 20 April 2002 01:25 PM
You're right, vaudree, I see your connection now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 21 April 2002 11:36 AM
Hello all -

Today is the day - and I have the feeling that the outcome of this meeting won't be on the evening news. If anybody sees any updates on this, please post. I work at a radio station, and I'm on tonight - I'd love to do another piece on this.

posted 22 April 2002 12:21 PM
Here is the text of a speech given yesterday by Jose Bustani to the OPCW (click the first link on the main part of the page). He doesn't mince words. The future of the organisation is at risk because of one partisan state. He doesn't feel the mandate of the OPCW can be fulfilled if it doesn't remain an arms length organisation free from political bullying. Let's hope member states see the logic in his arguments and tell the American government to keep it's hands out of the process.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 22 April 2002 12:35 PM
He certainly doesn't mince words. At least "a clear majority of the executive" did not support the U.S. no-confidence motion. That is a good sign.
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 23 April 2002 11:47 AM
More good news on this front - I wish I could find a link to it, but it moved on the Broadcast News wires late last night - the U.S. team sent to the Hague to argue against Bustani was met with a steady stream of jeers and boos. I guess Bush will have to start a war somewhere else in his quest for the Nobel Prize.
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 April 2002 01:25 PM
Now I don't agree with that kind of behavoir. They should be allowed to say their piece before being laughed all the way back to Washington.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 April 2002 01:32 PM
Bustani dismissed
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 April 2002 01:40 PM
Just &$*%ing great. Now they can apply the same pressure to any other multilateral group that demands equal treatment of all signatories, and that actively seeks new members. Maybe they can gut the WHO or AI next. AI is critical of many US involvements, after all.

Oh, is there going to be a breakdown of who the spineless bastards voting with the US were? I'm sure our delegate can be counted amongst the weak (as we know Germany and GB belong).

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 23 April 2002 01:51 PM
Does anybody know which way Bill Graham voted? I called his office to follow up- was transferred to their media outlet who said they'd call me back.

This is so sick, illegal, evil. I read Bustani's speech (link above) at noon, and was thinking I'd be able to come back and crow in triumph. I knew that the story wouldn't end there, that this would be an ongoing drama ... But this is brutal.

Bustani's speech is still a great speech. Everyone on this board should read it. We should put it and Monbiot's articles in the permanent archive.

posted 23 April 2002 07:19 PM
I have a knot of fear in my stomach that I haven't felt since the cold war ended. I can't believe how incredibly dangerous the world has become in such a short period of time. I question whether the world can survive Bush's owners' stupidity.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged

vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 23 April 2002 07:44 PM

quote: I can't believe how incredibly dangerous the world has become in such a short period of time.

How does that song go again? "I once was blind but now I see." It has always been that dangerous, we are just becoming aware of how much so. There are people out there who consider what happened to Val Orlikow a conspiracy theory. There are people out there who consider the death of dogs by Fabreze to be also a conspiracy theory, but many of them work for Proctor and Gamble.

quote: Yesterday evening, after a week of arm-twisting and secret meetings, the US government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. ...illegal ...But the ambassador explained that if the replacement is "like Bustani we will say 'screw the organisation'. We'll dismantle our [chemical] weapons independently and monitor them ourselves".

The Fox has just been put in charge of the hen house.

quote: He told the meeting that the US had been encountering "great difficulty finding people of the right calibre" because no one wants "to be associated with a dying organisation". This was news to the staff, who had previously been told by the US that sacking Bustani would revive the OPCW.

posted 24 April 2002 11:01 PM
No response from Graham, but if you sent him a letter before Bustani was dismissed, forward it to the opposition. Get someone to corner him in the House. That seems to work with Alexa and Joe.
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 25 April 2002 02:32 PM
I've called everyday to find out the answer- they just keep saying they'll call me back.

No one has called me back.

The question was, did he vote yes with the Americans, no, or did he obstain?

I don't get it- what's so darn hard about picking one of the three Is it a secret

quote:On Friday, the US ambassador to the OPCW organised an illegal meeting with American members of the organisation's staff. He explained that he had arrived late as he had been trying to find a replacement for Mr Bustani (this is also an illegal manoeuvre). He told the meeting that the US had been encountering "great difficulty finding people of the right calibre" because no one wants "to be associated with a dying organisation". This was news to the staff, who had previously been told by the US that sacking Bustani would revive the OPCW. But the ambassador explained that if the replacement is "like Bustani we will say 'screw the organisation'. We'll dismantle our [chemical] weapons independently and monitor them ourselves".

quote: I don't get it- what's so darn hard about picking one of the three? Is it a secret?

It's getting mesmerizing, isn't it, Anuri? I've had the same experience. On Thursday, I chatted the (very nice) receptionist up for a while -- she sounded very embarrassed and concerned, but offered no alternative to leaving another message for the guy who isn't getting back to anyone. "An awful lot of people are calling," she said.

I'm a Canadian, I said; I just want to know: for, or against Bustani? Why can't I know? The Canadian rep voted in my name -- how can this be secret? She vaguely empathized. And then I said: You must know -- you could tell me -- how could you not know? There was a long silence, and then she sort of choked and insisted that no, she did not know ...

posted 29 April 2002 04:00 PM
Okay - he's had a week and still no answer. My patience has expired. I am now hassling the opposition and I will call Graham from the radio station I work at (not that I think he will grant an interview) just to let him know that some in the media will pursue this, and his silence won't make it go away!
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 29 April 2002 11:43 PM
I've written a letter to my M.P. but would like to add Mr. Bustani's speech to it; however, I can not seem to find it anywhere- I've checked the links provided above and on the net but nothing...

posted 29 April 2002 11:58 PM
It is a bit obscure, Anuri, but it's there. Click on this OPCW home page, then click the 2nd box from the top on the right of the screen. It's called "Speeches and Statements..." Once on that new page, scroll down to "First Special Session...Statement by the Dir. Gen. 21 April, 2002.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged

Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 30 April 2002 09:50 AM
Nice job of hiding that link, if I do say so myself. It used to be directly linked to the front page of their website.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 April 2002 10:17 AM
If it vanishes altogether, I copied it and saved it to my own files. It's that superb.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 30 April 2002 11:55 AM
I couldn't find a link to it, but this week's Guardian Weekly had an article on the vote (page 2) that shows Britian was one of 48 countries that backed the U.S.-led vote. 43 abstentions. I want to know how reporter richard Norton-Taylor found out which way Britain voted (though an educated guess would have been pretty accurate!)
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 April 2002 12:15 PM
Hmmmn. Sometimes you can write to those reporters from the Web. I shall search the Guardian site.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 April 2002 12:33 PM
Couldn't find email addresses for individual reporters, but I wrote to editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk -- which is their newsdesk.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Since Monday April 22nd, I have been calling Mr. Bill Graham's office concerning the recent meeting of Member States called by the U.S. to remove Mr. Jose Bustani, the Director General of the International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), from his post.

Having done some research and read articles on Mr. Bustani and the organization, I found that under his lead, his inspectors have overseen the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon facilities. He has so successfully cajoled reluctant nations that the number of signatories to the convention has risen from 87 to 145 in the past five years: the fastest growth rate of any multilateral body in recent times. http://www.opcw.org/

It is my understanding that his crime was that he treated member states "equally" which means the U.S. if willing, (which it wasn't) was subject to the same inspections as other countries that carry chemical and nuclear weapons.

Before his removal, he was also successful in negotiating with Iraq to inspect their weapons. A crucial time when the United States is declaring war on Iraq. Since Mr. Bustani's removal on April the 21st, the U.S. is now publicly stating that Iraq is not willing to have its weapons inspected by this same organization which is now under U.S. rule.

I am writing to you as an ordinary Canadian, a constituent, wife, and mother of two boys, and in seeking your assistance to find out some answers. I have called Mr. Graham's office several times since the meeting of the member states and all I've been told is that someone would call me back and then I never hear from them again.

Mr. Graham attended this meeting. What is not known is which way he voted or if he abstained.

I sincerely hope that our elected officials will lead our country toward peaceful efforts rather than being side-kicks for the United States - which seems to be the current and scary trend considering that the U.S. is now dominating the Middle East, Asia, and going even further to the Far East.

Please find attached Mr. Bustani's speech at the Special Session of the Conference of the State Parties.

I appreciate your time and hope you will be able to help me find out which way our Country voted on this very important issue.______________________________

I cc'd this letter to: citizen, cbc, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and a couple of community organizations out of pure desparation to get some type of response.

...I should add that Graham also got the cc and the NDP too! Just to see if e-mails like this can get the opposition going(?) I didn't have time to e-mail the others...Alliance etc.

posted 05 May 2002 11:30 AM
So what do you think of the chemical spill in Manitoba with Benzene, Hexane and Glycol spewing all over the place. The officials are saying that those chemicals, while they may cause cancer over the long term, are harmless in the short term.http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/05/03/firdale_train020503

posted 07 May 2002 11:10 AM
Anyone else having any success? Apparently English journalists don't answer their email -- I was redirected to a more specific newsdesk immediately after I wrote to the address above, and I re-sent my query ... but nothing.

posted 08 May 2002 02:26 AM
No luck here either. There must be some way to get an answer...
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 08 May 2002 02:26 PM
This is my new tack - I am sending a new message every day until I get a bloody answer, and hassling all the opposition leaders and my MP.

Anyone care to join me?

quote: Dear Minister Graham,

Your refusal to answer the simple question as to which way Canada voted with regards to the dismissal of Jose Bustani as Director General of the OPCW is forcing people to draw their own conclusions.

There are three possibilities.

a) You oppossed the move.

b) You abstained, as did 43 other countries.

c) You voted for Bustani's removal.

The British Minister responsible voted with the U.S., however was not afraid to explain why publicly. As this vote was taken in the name of Canada, and Canadians, Mr. Graham, you owe us an answer. Failing to recieve one inspires people to conclude the worst, which is that you are simply a puppet of the U.S. in this matter.

On behalf of Mr. Eugène Bellemare, mp, Ottawa–Orléans, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail message concerning the International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

MP Bellemare appreciates your views and comments. This is how he can best represent you.

If you provide us with your complete postal address, we will forward your correspondence to the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Thank you for your acknowledgement, I am however, disappointed that Mr. Bellemare feels the best way he can represent me is to forward my letter to Minister Graham's office. As you may be aware, when I sent you the e-mail, I had cc'd it to Minister Graham's office so they already have a copy- is Mr. Bellemare then writing a cover letter in forwarding my letter to the Minister and if so, can I have a copy of that forward?

I was hoping, as I stated in my letter, that Mr. Bellemare's office would help myself and many Canadians find out which way Minister Graham voted on behalf of Canada- thus on behalf of Canadians on this very important issue.

Removing the head of an International Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who has done an incredible job in overseeing the destruction of 2million chemical weapons should not be taken lightly- particularly now- when the U.S., super power is calling "War" on many countries and will be using such weapons to accomplish its goals. Many civilians: young men, women, and children will suffer if not die as a result.

Having worked for a Liberal Member of Parliament myself, I am aware of how the current political structure functions. I would sincerely appreciate it if Mr. Bellemare didn't feed me the "party" line but give me and other Canadians an honest answer of whether he can help find out which way our country voted on the removal of Mr. Jose Bustani, now Ex-Director-General of the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I am once again, including Mr. Bustani's speech to re-iterate the kind of man he was to the organization and the integrity he held while under pressure from the U.S. to remove him from his post.

Thank you once again for your time,
From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 09 May 2002 11:44 AM
It's not much, but I did get a reply from the editor at the Guardian Weekly who forwarded my message to the author of the piece that sited the numbers in the vote. Maybe he will help shed some light on this.

I'm off to send Graham another message... and another.. and another...

Why do you continue to stonewall anyone who attempts to find out which way Canada voted with regards to the dimissal of Jose Bustani as head of the OPCW?

I wonder, does this fall under Access to Information? Inquiring minds want to know.

I realize that knowing which way you cast your ballot will not change the tragic outcome of that vote, however it will let me know where YOU stand, and what my government's true colours are - Liberal Red or Chicken Yellow.

posted 09 May 2002 12:19 PM
Casper, it really pains me to advise this, but I think (and I think you know) that you should probably go back to that "however" and recast the remainder of the message. Quite that blatant, and you're easier to dismiss -- but you know that. I think more in sorrow than in anger still works better -- although, when nothing seems to work ...

posted 09 May 2002 12:33 PM
This is the message I e-mailed to Marrin Brothers and the St. Vital school board yesterday. Since I have to go into the school to vote anyway ...

quote: Marrinbr@escape.caInfo@stvital.org

Dear Marron Brothers,

The products you use to deodorize and disinfect at Lavallee school, coat more than just the student's nasal passages and kill more than germs. These products coat everything they come in contact with - including my son's coats and footwear. I am tired of getting sick all the time. I am giving you the option of voluntarily removing your products from Lavallee school so that I don't have to take matters into my own hands. I am giving you the option because I know that the only other means available to me may result in permanent brain damage.

All it will take to get your products removed from Lavallee school is to pass out or have a mild heart attack. A death would get your products removed from all schools in Winnipeg, but, for obvious reasons, I am not prepared to go that far. My purpose is to get your products out of the school so that I don't have to die and so that my son does not have to sacrifice his future health in order to receive his right of an education. If you do so voluntarily, I do not have to risk permanent brain damage at all. If you don't, I'm risking permanent brain damage whether I enter the school, or just stay home and keep getting sick from what comes home with my son.

If your chemicals are perfectly safe, my words cannot be construed as a threat, since breathing the air in Lavallee school, the same air my son is forced against his will to inhale, would not cause me to have a mild heart attack or to pass out. However, we both know that your chemicals are not safe. I am tired of getting sick all the time, and I know that if I continue to get sick that I will die for sure. My body can afford to get very very sick once, if it means that I won't have to spend next winter getting very sick repeatedly. Either way, your products will be removed from the school, but if you remove them voluntarily, you might be able to save some of your self respect.

I am giving you until May 11th to voluntarily remove your dangerous chemicals from my son's school, or I will be forced to breath the air inside the school. If an ambulance is called, I will refuse it unless you pick up the tab. It is in both our interest that I do not die from inhaling air contaminated with your chemicals. If something goes wrong and I die in the school, where the cause of my death would be obvious, you stand to lose a lot of money. I know you care too much about money to let that happen. I also know that you would prefer that I suffer in silence, but suffering in silence is only for those who want to die. I don't really want to die, but if I do, the last thing I would want is for those responsible for to get off scott free. In other words, either you let me live or be prepared to pay the price.

posted 09 May 2002 01:39 PM
Unfortunately due to my current limited internet access today is the first time I have heard of this issue.

I am wondering if anyone could clarify something for me. The guardian article stated a couple of times that the actions taken by the United States were illegal. Does anyone know how so? Under what body were they considered illegal? Would it not be possible to launch, at the very least, an appeal if in fact it was illegal?

In the meantime I will add a letter to Mr. Graham's office to accompany those sent by you all.

posted 09 May 2002 02:27 PM
I've asked everybody, including my family doctor, and they say that no one here tests for allergies to chemicals. But here is what Dave Chomiak says:

quote: >From: "Health, Minister"

>Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:03:06 -0500>>Vaudree Lavallee>E-mail: vaudree@hotmail.com>>Dear Vaudree Lavallee:>>Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding your reactions to>substances in your son's school.>>Unfortunately, Manitoba Health does not make referrals to particular>physicians. I suggest that you return to your family physician, and ask for>a referral to an allergist for complete testing and care. As I am not a>medical practitioner, I must entrust decisions regarding medical care to the>professionals. I would strongly encourage you to continue working with your>physician to determine the best option for treatment and care.>>Thank you again for your correspondence. I wish the best for you and for>your son.>>>Sincerely,>>Dave Chomiak>

>From: "Health, Minister" >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:36:47 -0600>>Vaudree Lavallee>E-mail: vaudree@hotmail.com>>Dear Vaudree Lavallee:>>Thank you for your correspondence, and for sharing your personal experiences>with allergies. I appreciate the interest of all Manitobans in the>provision of health care, and I am pleased to respond to your concerns.>>After reading your correspondence, I can only recommend that you share your>concerns with your family doctor. Your doctor may be able to refer you to>an appropriate medical specialist in the field of allergies.>>As to your concerns regarding the testing of allergenic substances in>Manitoba, please be assured that Manitoba physicians routinely conduct>comprehensive allergy investigations of inhalants, chemicals, drugs, and>other, commonplace substances.>>Thank you, again, for your correspondence. I wish you and your son good>health.>>Sincerely,>>>Dave Chomiak

I've been following this thread for a while, thinking that the people's inquiries would be responded to in no time, and with a simple Yes or No. At this point I am stunned to see the stonewalling in effect over a simple query (or is it just sloppy work on their part, perhaps? It can't be, can it?).

Edited: I forgot to add, I wrote to my MP's (Alexa McDonough) Constituency office too, for what's worth.

To make a law affecting the production of chemical weapons for war, or to regulate this production more closely, is going to affect the whole industry - irregardless as to whether these weapons are meant for use on humans, bugs or germs. Regulation affects the whole industry whether one wishes to come up with the new and improved agent orange or the new and improved round-up or Tide.

Before you start determining what is relevant or irrelevant start looking at the lobby groups involved. Some of them should surprise you. I'd bet my son's allowance on it!

Do we even know who was lobbying against regulating the production of chemical weapons - that's what we should be finding out. Without that knowledge we don't even know what we are up against. You can be buying toothpaste from the company that lobbied to get Jose Bustani fired.

posted 09 May 2002 09:05 PM
Good point! I wonder if there's a break-down of Corporations and their subsidiaries...I'll have to look.
From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 10 May 2002 02:28 PM
The answer has arrived! Though not from one of our illustrious and elusive members of Parliament.

I got a response from the reporter at the Guardian covering the story and here it is.

quote: You can see from this Commons answer that Canada voted against Bustani.(Bradshaw is the junior foreign ministers here)

Hansard, 8 May 2002 : Column: 240-1WJose Bustani

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the Government'sdecision to vote in favour of a vote of no confidence in Jose Bustani,Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons; [52578]

(2) if he will make a statement on the decision of Her Majesty's Governmentto vote to remove the Director General of the Organisation for theProhibition of Chemical Weapons. [54237]

Mr. Bradshaw: Our policy throughout this matter has been guided by ourjudgment of what is in the best interests of the Chemical WeaponsConvention (CWC) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons (OPCW). Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a significant numberof the OPCW's Executive Council. At a Special Conference of the OPCW on 21April, 48 states parties voted for the resolution to terminate Mr.Bustani's appointment, 43 abstained and only seven voted against. EveryEuropean Union country voted for the resolution (except France, whichabstained), as did other key countries like India, Australia, Canada andJapan. Mr. Bustani's appointment was accordingly terminated with immediateeffect.

Not a surprise that Graham is hiding

Although something still puzzles me. According to the minutes of the executive council meeting (link posted earlier in this thread), the executive voted to reject the motion for a no-confidence vote.

That's the British Commons and British Hansard, isn't it? Hoooooly mackerel. The worm. The utter worm. Not only did he do the evil deed; he's too much the worm to inform the citizens he represents, even when numbers of them ask repeatedly how our representative voted. We have to find out from a foreign parliament, via a foreign journalist. What a worm!

You ask what we do now. I need a cursing period, followed by a thinking period. I can't do it today, but I plan a phone call on Monday. And then -- more letters? Why hasn't Alexa or Joe responded either?

I have just composed another little note to Graham, the weasel and here it is.

quote: Dear Minister Graham,

After doing extensive research I have learned that you voted with the United States in favour of dismissing Jose Bustani as head of the OPCW.

I am very upset by your decision, but more upset with your complete refusal to disclose the information, regardless of repeated querries from myself, and many others across the country.

It is inexcusable that in order to determine which way Canada voted, I had to contact a reporter at the British Guardian Weekly newspaper, who knew only because your British counterpart stood up in the Commons and cited Canada as a country that voted with Britain.

Your lack of disclosure has made me lose complete confidence in you and your party, as I know that many have also attempted to get answers through their Liberal MPs.

I am a journalist and am forwarding this information to all my media contacts in an effort to bring to light a very newsworthy story that should have been reported in a timely fashion - an effort it seems you took every step to prevent.

I am also very curious as to why this issue has not been raised in the House. Both the U.S. takeover of a multi-lateral body coupled with the refusal of the Minister to answer a straightforward question seem very worthy of public debate to me.

Good question. For starters we need to get his reasoning for voting wrong straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. Bill Graham, not a spokesperson). I'll lay odds that he doesn't even have a clear reason besides for the foolish "losing confidence". He probably didn't know who Bustani was before jetting off to vote with the shrub. Then we need to start asking him loaded questions from Bustani's last speech.

Examples:

So, Mr. Graham, how exactly did Mr. Bustani lose the confidence of the majority of states? Financial records indicate that the agency wasn't wasting money; he signed up 60-odd countries in his years at the helm; he was preparing to even bring Iraq into the organisation in order to inspect for WMD's there. What more would he have needed to do to gain the confidence of a majority of states?

or...

Given Mr. Bustani's ability to treat each member country equally, and his talent for collecting new signatories, who do you think can do a better job as director of this agency? Do you have a specific candidate in mind?

I don't think we can realistically hope to get Bustani back at the helm, but at least we can embarrass the spineless dorks who voted him out.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 10 May 2002 02:43 PM

quote: Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a significant number of the OPCW's Executive Council.

Did any of these work for or have ties to chemical companies? You can define "chemical company" as loosely or broadly as you wish here.

Also, what are the names of the big campaign contributers - either in Canada or the US would be easiest to obtain.

quote: I don't think we can realistically hope to get Bustani back at the helm, but at least we can embarrass the spineless dorks who voted him out.

I will definetly endevour to do so - though I have been trying to get a phone interview with him on the subject - no joy. Perhaps we need to solicit a better known journalist on a national broadcast... any suggestions?

posted 10 May 2002 03:19 PM
P.S. another update - the OPCW web page no longer seems to provide a link to Bustani's speech to the executive - originally front page, later relegated to "Speeches and Statements by the Director General" - now gone. I have written an email to confirm whether it was removed, and if it indeed has, I have inquired as to the reason.
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 May 2002 12:25 PM
If anyone wants a copy of the speech, I saved it. I figured they were going to do this.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 11 May 2002 01:15 PM
Me please, me please!!!

If you could email it to me (Acrobat or Word would be great - or a simple notepad text! I would appreciate it.

posted 11 May 2002 02:45 PM
Actually you guys, just paste it into e-mail - e-mail acts as an FTP and then you can pasted in into any word processing program without having to worry about incompatibilities.

You heard of the Fabrese controversy. Some people complained that Fabrese killed their dogs. The company could not take this so their PR spun it as an urban legend, conceding that the animals that died died of other causes and even went so far as creating a phoney vetranarians society just to have a prostegeous looking body proclaim that Fabrese is perfectly safe and that these dog owners were misguided fools.

If Proctor and Gambles could put all this in protecting some useless fad product, how much effort will the companies which are actually into developing chemical weapons for war actually put into lobbying and spinning and phoney expert groups.

You all have heard about the unholy alliance between Novartis and CHADD - presumed self-help groups are not above being influenced by a big company willing to put a lot of funding their way, just so that their product will be funded.

posted 12 May 2002 02:00 PM
I know it's a hell of a long post, and many have already read it, but I have sent out mass messages to get people to follow the story, and they have all asked for Bustani's speech, so I am posting it up. Now we can all bask in the warm glow of a reasonable man.

quote:Statement by the Director-General at the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties

21 April 2002

Mr Chairman,Excellencies, Distinguished delegates,

1. Back in 1997, when I decided to accept the request of the Brazilian Government to submit mycandidature for the position of Director-General of the OPCW, I considered it, and I still consider it, an honour to be granted the unique opportunity to contribute to the first EVER TRULY global attempt to abolish an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

2. But more than anything, I decided to run for the post of Director-General because the ChemicalWeapons Convention represents the international community's biggest ever achievement in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. It is the first – and only – truly non-discriminatory multilateral disarmament treaty in existence – it is a treaty which places equal responsibilities on, and gives equal rights to, all States Parties.

3 Countries possessing chemical weapons that embraced the Chemical Weapons Convention have been divesting themselves of those travesties of history because they are assured that stockpiles of those weapons existing elsewhere are also being destroyed, under a stringent verification regime. The Convention establishes no special treatment for countries with a large chemical industry. Developing countries, when they declare themselves ready to enhance international security by joining the Organization, have, in their vast majority, little understanding of chemical weapons; yet, they immediately see the benefit in participating, through the greater access to technology and technical assistance to which they become entitled. Indeed, the Convention declares itself to be in favour of the broadest possible cooperation among States Parties in respect of peaceful uses of chemistry. Furthermore, the Convention requires us all to make every effort to extend its regime universally – with no exceptions. As a result, during my first five years as Director-General, no Member State was considered "more equal" than others. And I have never subscribed tothe theory that "equality" is proportional to the size of any one state's budgetary contribution.

4. Those were the promises inherent in the Convention – as I saw them at the time, and as Icontinue to see them today. That was the basis of the "vision" that I brought to the Organisation on my very first day on the job. That was the vision that was amply clear to all, and not challenged by anyone, when my term was extended by acclamation in May 2000, one year ahead of schedule. That was the vision that I vowed to uphold back in 1997, and that is the vision that I intend to keep intact as long as I remain Director-General. Yet – if I am to believe the various allegations of my "ill-conceived initiatives" – that vision is now being rejected by some members of this Organisation.

5. Of course I was always aware that the job of Director-General of the OPCW would not be aneasy one. I knew that I was going to face considerable pressures, and that my integrity might be put to the test. I realised that immediately after I was elected Director-General, when I had to fight in order to put together a team of trusted colleagues, on the basis of their competence and ability, and not of the politicalpressures brought to bear upon me. I realised this again shortly thereafter, when one Member State tried – unsuccessfully – to force me to provide it with copies of each and every inspection report. I realise it even more deeply now, when one Member State is leading the campaign for my immediate departure from theOPCW, allegedly because of my "management style". Yet, I am as convinced now as I was then, that theChemical Weapons Convention will survive only if the principles of genuine multilateralism, true fairness, and equal treatment are preserved. And those are the principles that I have been trying to uphold every day of the last five years.

6. I am truly proud of the OPCW's achievements in those five years. I am proud of the staff ofthe Secretariat. Member States should be grateful to every one of those 500 hard-working professionals for what the OPCW has been able to accomplish. I am proud of the unprecedented growth in the membership of the Organisation – which is the clearest evidence of the respect for the OPCW amongst its States Parties, as well as amongst the ever-dwindling number of States not party. I am proud that we have established a soundand impartial verification regime, and that we are fortunate to have inspectors who have placed impartiality, decency, and ethics above everything. Their loyalty is to the Organisation, and not to individual Member States. I am proud of the more than 1,100 inspections we have conducted in more than 50 Member States; and of the non-discriminatory and unbiased way in which we conducted them. I am proud of the proposalwhich is now before the Executive Council for the provision of effective and timely assistance to victims of chemical weapons attacks, including attacks by terrorists. And I am proud of the modest, yet extremely significant, effort we put into our international cooperation programmes, which, I firmly believe, are critical to the struggle against the proliferation of chemical weapons. I have faith that the OPCW will ultimately succeed in its mission to completely destroy the world's chemical weapons arsenals. As I have stated before, once its disarmament mission has been accomplished, the OPCW should become an "organisation for the promotionof chemistry for peaceful purposes", in full accordance with the spirit of the Convention.

7. Against the backdrop of these achievements, I can only see the attack launched against me asan attack on the OPCW itself, and, in particular, on those key principles which have been guiding my work, and which have become the hallmark of my "management style". Indeed, the unprecedented effort that has been put into ensuring my dismissal suggests the intention to change much more at the OPCW than the personality of its Director-General, or his "management style". And this would explain why my appeals for dialogue and cooperation have been repeatedly rejected. Contrary to the path of stonewalling and hostilitywhich my critics have chosen, I still believe that dialogue and cooperation offer the best way out of any crisis, including the current one, for the benefit of the Convention and all States Parties. Let me repeat again that, even at this very late stage, and in spite of the many slanderous remarks that have been made about me inthe course of the last few months, I still stand ready and willing to follow the path of dialogue and cooperation.

8.No one can disregard the fact that the OPCW works, and works well. And it has the respect andsupport of the vast majority of its 145 States Parties. The OPCW has become too strong to be destroyed from the outside. This may explain the current attempt to implode it from within, together with its underlying principles of fairness and non-discrimination. The culture of non-discrimination and equal treatment that Ihave fought hard to establish in the Secretariat is now under attack. That culture is being challenged by one of silent and unquestioning obedience to one or a few "major contributors". If this "new culture" is to prevail, then those members of staff who act with integrity and are committed to fairness will have to be the first to go – starting with the Director-General.

9. Those of you who have been closely following the work of the OPCW certainly realise what it isabout my management style that appears to be causing discomfort in some quarters. I could have been just a figurehead, as some Member States wanted. Instead I have chosen, as the Convention requires, to take my responsibilities seriously, amongst other things by being actively involved in the everyday work of the Organisation. I refused to defer to those individuals who some Member States want to be in charge.

10. Ironically enough, because I have stood in the way of decisions that would have established adouble standard in the Organisation, I am now accused of being biased. What is bias for some, is in reality my commitment to "equal treatment for all". I insist that the scope of access for our inspectors should be the same in all countries. I also insist that States Parties cannot pick and choose those areas which inspectors may or may not verify. I insist that the verification effort, in full accordance with the Convention, should be aimed at inspectable facilities, rather than at certain countries. I insist on measures that will ensure that OPCW inspectors verify those weapons and equipment which the OPCW must verify, rather than merely those which might be volunteered by a State Party for verification. In other words, I trust, but I also verify, everywhere, in full accordance with the Convention. I do criticise attempts to water down the verification regime. I do criticise the continuing attempts of a small number of States Parties to stonewall long-awaited solutions to critical issues out of perceived national preferences. And I am now facing this current ongoing ordeal because I should not, perhaps, have drawn the attention of other Member States to these matters, as the Convention requires.

11. What else about my management style is not liked that might require changing? Let us examinethe list of my "ill-conceived initiatives".

12. I am blamed for seeking Iraq's membership of the CWC, even though this effort is in fullaccordance with the decisions of the UN Security Council, and with the mandate issued to me by all of you, to ensure the Convention's universality WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Does dissatisfaction with my actions mean that the universality of the Convention should include some countries, but not others, not Iraq, for example?

13. I am blamed for seeking to establish, in full accordance with Article X of the Convention, acredible system to protect States Parties from an attack, including a terrorist attack, with chemical weapons. Should as many as two thirds of Member States remain defenceless against such a threat, while the ability of a small number of other States to protect themselves and their allies remains robust?

14.I am blamed for holding out the OPCW's hand to the international community in its fight againstterrorism, simply because the OPCW has unique expertise in chemical weapons to offer in this regard. Is that a crime? Or is it a compassionate and rational offer, on the basis of my assessment of the very real contribution which the OPCW, in close consultation with other international organisations, will have to make in the post September 11th context?

15. I am now reproached for fully funding in 2001 one single international cooperation programmewhich amounted to just 0.4 percent of the OPCW budget for that year, yet which meant a great deal to the many developing countries. This programme represents the vital link between disarmament and development that has been recognised and endorsed by the United Nations. Do Member States seek to further reduce the international cooperation and assistance programmes at the OPCW, which at present account for a meagre 6% of its budget?

16. Finally, I am blamed for wishing to keep all States Parties informed of progress in the destruction of Russia's chemical weapons, and for suggesting that Russia's utilisation of international assistance be scrutinised by the international community. If those are my ill-conceived initiatives, then I plead guilty ascharged.

17.I believe that any abandonment of such sound policies will have extremely serious consequencesfor the Organisation and for you, the Member States. This is why I insisted that my fate should be decided by all of you, the States Parties, and not by one, or a few "major contributors", which, in supporting the US draftdecision, appear to share the US perception of my "errors of judgement".

Mr Chairman,

18. I will be frank – a major blow is being struck against the OPCW. And the perpetrators would have preferred it to take place behind closed doors. They were absolutely confident that they could move any piece on the global chessboard ad libitum, without consultation or explanation to the rest of the world and, inparticular, to the rest of the Organisation's membership. This is why, in flagrant violation of the letter, not to mention the spirit, of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Brazilian Government was unilaterally approached with the demand that I resign and be "reassigned". Much later, I was approached unilaterally withultimatums to step down. And the campaign did not stop, even when a clear majority of the 41 members of the Executive Council declined to support the US "no-confidence motion" requesting me to stand down.

19. As I wrote to your Foreign Ministers, there is a more important and fundamental point toconsider. Much more than the person of the Director-General – and, please, forget Jose Bustani now – or even the OPCW itself, is at stake here. No Director-General, of any international organisation in history, hasever been dismissed during his or her term of office. Moreover, no Director-General should be dismissed without due process, without any evidence of malfeasance being produced by the accuser, and without, at the very least, an open discussion and an independent investigation of the allegations. Those of you who havebeen following developments at the OPCW know that I have committed no crime. You know that the so-called allegations against me are trumped up charges. You know that there is no mismanagement of the OPCW's budget, and that every cent has been spent on activities that were properly budgeted for. The latest report bythe External Auditor – on the 2001 financial year – is the clearest possible indication of this. It will be formally issued in the next few days, but has already given us a perfectly clean bill of health, once again, for 2001. You know that my offer of a full and independent inquiry into my performance as the Director-General wasrejected because such an inquiry would simply expose the allegations as absolutely unfounded, and confirm that there has never been any wrongdoing. The US draft decision, in fact, establishes a precedent whereby the Director-General or Secretary-General of any international organisation can be removed from office at anytime during his or her tenure, simply because one Member State, with or without other "major contributors", doesn't like his or her "management style", or has "lost confidence" in him or her, whatever this might mean. And to establish such a precedent within an organisation such as the OPCW, which is not in the public eye of the international community as are some of its cousins, is easy. This is what this Conference is about. These are the choices you face.

20. Now let me say a few words to those who are concerned about the OPCW's survival, should onevery important Member State not pay its budgetary contribution to the Organisation. I fundamentally disagree with those who may think that it is better to surrender the OPCW to that Member State, than to maintain a truly multilateral OPCW at minimal additional cost. I will never agree that the façade of multilateralism is more important than its substance. This would not be a compromise – it would be capitulation. Why? I will explain. This Member State's contribution to this year's OPCW budget is 12 million euros, six million of whichhave already been paid. Is six million euros too high a price to pay for ensuring the independence and effectiveness of the Organisation? Is six million euros (or even 10 or 12 million euros, should other like-minded Member States also refuse to pay their dues) too high a price to pay to avoid ousting the sitting head of an international organisation, something never yet attempted in international law? Is the OPCW'sindependence this cheap?

21. Now, let me say a few words about the immediate future. Those who believe that, if I leave, the Organisation will be flooded with money, are sadly mistaken. The OPCW has already suffered three years of underbudgeting. As a result, in 2003, just to keep up with the significant increase in the verification workloaddetermined by yourselves, we will have to recruit 47 staff. To pay for this, the 2003 budget will have to be increased by more than 20 percent. This increase is simply non-negotiable. In full knowledge of this, major contributors have already made it clear that they will not agree to more than a 10 percent increase in 2003, which is not enough even to pay the salaries of existing staff. As a consequence, next year, regardless of the identity of the Director-General, you will see a shrinking, not an expanding, OPCW, and an unavoidable reduction in its staff. And this will be the next step towards the Organisation's demise, because funding is being determined by political agendas, and, in a few capitals at least, the OPCW seems to be a very low priority.

22. Yes, there is too much at stake here – for the OPCW, for other international organisations, and for the international community. It is time to rise to the challenge. It is time to set priorities as they are perceived by all of you, and not just by a few so?called " major players". This is why I refused to resign under pressure from a small handful of Member States. I did so in order to give you all the opportunity to makeyour choice – to determine what future, if any, multilateral organisations have in this increasingly dangerous, complex, and unstable world.

23. You may be surprised to hear that, had I resigned and agreed to walk away, then myexecutioners would have granted me a "dignified" departure, and that my accomplishments over five years of stewardship would even have been applauded. However, let me tell you: I do not need a hero's departure. But if I do go – something that is now in the hands of all of you – it will be with honour. I will have beenfaithful to the principles of integrity by which I have tried to live my professional and personal lives – principles which are shared by my family, my foreign service and my country's foreign policy. Please understand that, in refusing to resign, I chose the most arduous of the two paths. One that brought threats, risks, stress, and insecurity, but which I chose to follow. First of all, because that is the call of my conscience. Secondly, becausethe bulk of my 36 years in the Foreign Service have been devoted to the elaboration and strengthening of multilateral instruments, without which, I firmly believe, peace and harmony among nations will not be achieved. I therefore refuse to resign, NOT because I want to cling to my position; but because, in not resigning, I will be preserving the right of each one of you – of even the smallest Member State amongst you – to publicly state your position on this very serious issue and to conscientiously take responsibility for your decision. I consider it my duty to give you all, and not only the most powerful amongst you, the right to oustme.

24.Although this unprecedented, ruthless and arbitrary procedure is taking place away from thepublic limelight, beneath the low skies of the subdued city of The Hague, the decisions to be taken here over the next few days will leave an indelible mark on the history of international relations. I hope that all of you, the Member States, will confront this historic challenge in full awareness of the implications of your decision. The choices that you make during this session of the Conference will determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive, or whether it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise.

25. Excellencies, the responsibility for this decision rests with you.

posted 13 May 2002 05:07 PM
Some positive developments. Still haven't heard hide or hair from Graham, but I recieved a letter from Joe Clark today. He expressed concern and said that he did not believe anyone had put the matter to the Tory Foreign Affairs critic Bill Casey - and indicated he had recieved several letters on the subject - all of which he is putting to Casey to address. I may not like Tory politics, but I have a lot of respect for Joe Clark - I have been writing him with my political rants since the sixth grade (literally!) and he has never let me down. Go Joe!

Also, I got a reply from the contact at OPCW who claims that the speech is still available on their web page, and refered me to exactly the section from which it was removed. I have sent them yet another note to inform them they are in error, and have yet to answer my question.

I have also contacted dept heads at universities with International Development programs... perharps someone can light a fire under someone ass and get something done.

posted 16 May 2002 12:02 PM
One last thing: from the response that I got from my MP's Constituency Assistant:

quote:I just spoke to a staff person in Svend Robinson's office who said that the Canadian Rep to that committee voted to remove the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Svend has written a letter on thismatter to the Foreign Affairs office.

There were 48 votes in favour of the U.S. motion (including pretty well all the nations of Western Europe, and Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Australia), 7 votes against it (Belarus, Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Russia), 43 Abstntions (including France) and 2 non-participating members. Canada was among the 48 voting for the motion.

posted 21 May 2002 04:18 PM
I received a ltter from Svend's office this morning, confirming that Canada voted in favour of the US motion to oust Mr. Bustani.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 27 May 2002 05:15 PM
More strange developments...

I got a letter from Bill Casey, the Tory Foreign affairs critic today...

quote: As you are aware, the motion put forth by the US was unsuccessful and Mr. Bustani remains the Director General of the OPCW. However, the positions of member countries were quite divided and the US has suggested this further reinforces their position that he is no longer able to lead the organization. Canada supported the US motion along with 16 other countries including Japan, Poland and most of the Europeans Union. If Bustani does not resign the US intends to call a special conference of the 145 signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention in order to officially have Mr. Bustani removed.

The Government has suggested that the continued debate over leadership of the organization is endangering the survival and viabiltiy of the multilateral disarmament and areas control organization. History has certainly suggested that if a leader loses the ability to lead, then it is certain that the organization's success will decline. Perhaps this idea contributes to the position taken by the Governemnt. One thing is for certain; I am personally impressed to date with Mr. Bustani's efforts and recognize the extreme importance of the role he continues to play.

Whafuck?

According to every paper that bothered to cover the story the motion was passed and Bustani was ousted. Either someone isn't doing his job, or something smells really bad.

posted 27 May 2002 05:23 PM
Very strange. That Bustani had been removed was the claim of this April 22 Grauniad column by George Monbiot, linked to on the previous page of this thread:

quote:Yesterday evening [i.e., April 22], after a week of arm-twisting and secret meetings, the US government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. As this column predicted last week, this is the first time that the head of an international organisation has been dismissed during his term in office.

I can only guess that Casey is referring to this earlier attempt, back in March, to sack Bustani. Perhaps Casey, or some Tory Party researcher, got it wrong.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 27 May 2002 05:40 PM
Not only the Guardian - check out the OPCW home page

quote:"After the Conference considered the proposal to end the tenure of the Director-General of the Technical Secretariat for the requisite 24-hour period, in an effort to reach a consensus decision, a roll-call vote was held on 22 April 2002. Over a two-thirds majority of those States Parties present and voting supported the proposal.

Following the decision of the Conference, I thanked the out-going Director-General for his many years of dedicated service to the Organisation. Under Mr Bustani's leadership, this Organisation has become one of the foremost multilateral disarmament Organisations, setting standards of excellence and equal treatment.

from the press release following the first special session at the Hague.

and Bustani's speech still does not appear anywhere. It seems pretty clear that he is no longer the acting head of the OPCW. I think I'll give Casey a call and tell him to check out

quote:However, the positions of member countries were quite divided and the US has suggested this further reinforces their position that he is no longer able to lead the organization.

Bah. They were only "divided" because the US was arm-twisting and mischief-making.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Casper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1406

posted 27 May 2002 09:27 PM
I was just reading over this thread and I caught this one...

quote: You heard of the Fabrese controversy. Some people complained that Fabrese killed their dogs. The company could not take this so their PR spun it as an urban legend, conceding that the animals that died died of other causes and even went so far as creating a phoney vetranarians society just to have a prostegeous looking body proclaim that Fabrese is perfectly safe and that these dog owners were misguided fools.

Intresting catch, vaudree - I saw an add of thiers the other day depicting a dog that ran around the house while the owners were away spraying the stuff on everything. I had never heard of the Fabrese controversy before you mentioned it. Thanks.

posted 27 May 2002 10:23 PM
I think the letter from Casey is a form letter, I got the same one.

I'm writing him an email to let him know the error and challenge him to take up this issue. Of course given that a subserviant foreign policy is not as "sexy" as which Minister's ex-lover was paid to produce 14 pages of drivel, my guess is that he won't.

quote:You heard of the Fabrese controversy. Some people complained that Fabrese killed their dogs. The company could not take this so their PR spun it as an urban legend, conceding that the animals that died died of other causes and even went so far as creating a phoney vetranarians society just to have a prostegeous looking body proclaim that Fabrese is perfectly safe and that these dog owners were misguided fools.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 May 2002 10:30 AM

quote:I'm writing him an email to let him know the error and challenge him to take up this issue. Of course given that a subserviant foreign policy is not as "sexy" as which Minister's ex-lover was paid to produce 14 pages of drivel, my guess is that he won't.

Me too. And yeah.

Curiouser and curiouser. Casper and 'lance, I had to read your exchange of yesterday over a couple of times before I believed what I was reading. And even so, I'm still wondering whether I need new specs.

posted 28 May 2002 12:19 PM
Casey may act if he's embarrassed enough! It's pretty freakin' unacceptable when he's operating on info that is a month out of date! Not to mention sending form letters out to anyone who bothers to write his party with their concerns (there ain't a whole lot of Tories in the House in case he hasn't noticed!)

Anyway, I'm sending him a note...

quote: I received your correspondence yesterday concerning the dismissal of Jose Bustani. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my concerns. I fear, however, that your information on the subject is out of date. In your letter, dated May 10, you stated

"As you are aware, the motion put forth by the US was unsuccessful and Mr. Bustani remains the Director General of the OPCW".

Unless all media reports to the contrary were in error, then that statement is false. Bustani was dismissed on April 22nd after the US coerced its allies into supporting their motion of non-confidence. 48 states voted with the US (including Canada), 43 abstained (including France) and 7 voted against the motion (Belarus, Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran, Mexico and Russia). This was in spite of his unprecedented success as Director General of the OPCW - millions of chemical weapons destroyed and 60 new states joined.

The reason I began to write Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, my M.P Lucienne Robitaille, and the leaders of all the parties sitting in opposition was to find out which way Canada voted. Graham has dodged all calls and letters on the subject. I found out the numbers on the vote from a British reporter at The Guardian Weekly newspaper.

That I had to find out which way Graham voted in the name of Canada through a quote from Bill Graham's British counterpart is not acceptable. That Canada was a participant in US bullying of a multilateral body is not acceptable. And that no one in the opposition has raised this in the House is mystifying.

I encourage you to do some more research on the subject.

In your letter you stated "I am personally impressed to date with Mr. Bustani's efforts and recognise the extreme importance of the role he continues to play". I would like to know what you think once you are up to date on the developments, and investigate for yourself his unjust dismissal.

quote: Thank you for your letter dated May 28th, 2002. I appreciate you taking the time to forward me further information regarding trhe OPCW. Unfortunately, at the time my response was forwarded, we did not have the most updated version of the facts. The information you provided is informative and as you have suggested certainly sheds new light on the situation.

Again, I appreaicate receiving you opinion on this subject and taking the time to bring me further up to date.

posted 04 June 2002 01:53 PM
Do we need to send this guy a Strunk and White, a library card and a subscription to the Guardian? Nice to know that you are taken seriously, eh? I think I'll send him the link to this page, then start a topic dubbed The Many Ways in Which Bill Casey Sucks.
From: Another smoky metropolis | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 18 June 2002 11:10 AM
"The reply" from Bill Graham's office!

OTTAWA, ONTARIOK1A 0G2

June 18, 2002

Ms. Heather R. Tickie

Dear Ms. Tickie:

On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Bill Graham, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of May 8, 2002, concerning Canada’s vote to continue to support Mr. José Bustani as Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Canada has always been and remains an ardent supporter of the OPCW. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the OPCW is the administrative body responsible for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It exists as an independent entity, completely separate from the United Nations.

As you may know, a special Conference of States Parties was recently convened in The Hague to consider whether Mr. Bustani should continue as Director-General of the OPCW. As a result of the vote taken on April 22, 2002, the Conference decided overwhelmingly that he should be replaced. This result was anticipated as Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a large number of States Parties.

Canada decided to support the removal of Mr. Bustani because it was the only realistic way that the crisis surrounding the leadership of the OPCW could be quickly and effectively resolved. It was Canada's assessment that a long and protracted debate over the leadership would have seriously damaged this important organization. The decisive result of the vote demonstrated that most countries shared this view.

Canada worked hard towards a satisfactory solution and considered that a change in leadership was essential and in the best interest of the OPCW. Preserving the integrity of, and strengthening, this important organization was our overriding concern.

You may be assured that Canada remains firmly committed to a strong and viable OPCW, and to its efforts to rid the world of the scourge of chemical weapons.

quote:It was Canada's assessment that a long and protracted debate over the leadership would have seriously damaged this important organization. The decisive result of the vote demonstrated that most countries shared this view.

Um: circular argument here.

We knew before that our representatives were taking, in our name, the position of 1) cowards and 2) obfuscators. We have further learned that when they finally respond to their mail, they respond as 1) cowards and 2) obfuscators. Ptui.

posted 18 June 2002 12:12 PM
The "long and protracted debate"--which would more likely have been short and sweet since there was no good evidence against, and very good evidence for, Bustani--would have damaged the credibility of the backroom bully by exposing its corrupt machinations to the light of day. The "organization" (and others of its kind) would actually have been strengthened by any kind of debate--"long and protracted" or not. But then, it's a matter of priorities, right?

quote: Canada decided to support the removal of Mr. Bustani because it was the only realistic way that the crisis surrounding the leadership of the OPCW could be quickly and effectively resolved. It was Canada's assessment that a long and protracted debate over the leadership would have seriously damaged this important organization. The decisive result of the vote demonstrated that most countries shared this view.

"Canada decided to support the removal of Mr. Bustani because"... we certainly can't be seen as making waves, rocking the boat or any other aquatic phrase you might like to think of. We'd be sunk on the international scene if we stood up for what was actually the right thing to do. Besides, then we'd have to bother with all that pesky debate stuff. "The decisive result of the vote demonstrated that most countries shared this view. "

posted 18 June 2002 12:35 PM
I'm having trouble restraining myself from making a letter to Mr Wood quite mean. I am tempted, eg, to tell him that he's been published here and to give him the URL of this thread. Is that too mean? Should I take the high road?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 18 June 2002 12:40 PM

quote: Intresting catch, vaudree - I saw an add of thiers the other day depicting a dog that ran around the house while the owners were away spraying the stuff on everything. I had never heard of the Fabrese controversy before you mentioned it. Thanks.

At the time I was going to send you the information backing up my claims from the net since I had some of it bookmarked. Nice to see that this information is no longer cluttering up the net either.

Did you read the latest couple of issues in straightgoods, they seem to be getting very much into the chemical warfare issue but on the home frount.

Too bad about Mr. Bustani, but I guess this is one firing/censoring that we cannot blame on the Asper family. Makes you glad that there are places like straightgoods and rabble you can go to to get the real news.

PS. It would be a good time to link this to a new thread so that the regulars can continue the coversation where they left off. Audra will be closing this thread before the day is over.

Thank you for responding to my letter in a timely fashion. Mr. Bill Graham can rest assured that he has not convinced me either a) that his decision to oust Mr. Bustani was the right decision or b) that his response to my concerns was honest.

Your letter indicates that Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a large number of States Parties, but doesn't attempt to explain why. As you may be ignorant to the history behind this decision, I will attempt to educate you.

Mr. Bustani was actively seeking two things: the inclusion of Iraq into the treaty (and thus the deployment of OPCW inspectors into Iraq) and the equal application of OPCW rules to all signatories. One state in particular (the US) did not want these Bustani-sponsored initiatives to take place. Iraq's inclusion in the OPCW takes away the US' primary claim (for war) that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Also, the US was uneasy with allowing foreign weapons inspectors (officers of the OPCW) access to it's facilities. The US was one of very few parties uneasy with Bustani's leadership, as earlier votes attest, and thus attempted to scuttle the organisation by threatening to refuse to pay it's share of the bills. This threat (which could have caused the collapse of the OPCW) frightened other countries into supporting the US motion.

For these reasons, I suspect that when you say that Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a number of States Parties, what you really mean is that many States Parties were afraid that the OPCW would collapse without US support. This I can understand, without the OPCW, our world moves backwards a step. While I don't agree with supporting bullying tactics on this issue, I can pragmatically understand why Mr. Graham needed to vote against Mr. Bustani. Please be honest with me in future correspondence.

I can scarcely believe that you stated "a long and protracted debate over the leadership would have seriously damaged this organisation". A long and protracted debate over the leadership would not have been an issue if Bustani remained in a leadership position. Furthermore, since when is debate damaging? Debate allows people and organizations to see all sides of issues, and is crucial for the survival of international organisations such as the OPCW. Perhaps if Mr. Graham had actually considered both sides of this debate, his vote would've been different.

I do agree that Canada should remain vigilant against the scourge of chemical weapons. I question whether removing Mr. Bustani from his post, at the behest of a single client state, serves to further the reduction of chemical weapons. If anything, Mr. Graham has shown that the federal Liberal government places higher importance on international political pragmatism than on any concerns over chemical weapons disarmament and control.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

Thank your for your acknowledgement- I am surprised to receive one since it has now been over two months since I contacted Mr. Graham's office concerning the Special Member's meeting called by the United States.

I originally called, as did many Canadians to encourage Mr. Graham to vote against the United States but vote to keep Mr. Bustani in his post as Director General of the OPCW. I made follow-up calls and e-mails to find out which way Mr. Graham voted on behalf of Canadians but when I encountered extreme silence from his office, I was forced to contact my Member of Parliament, Mr. Bellemere who forwarded my letter dated May 8, 2002 to the Minister- which I assume is the letter you are responding to. Since there was no timely response from our government, I later learned from the British government and a foreign newspaper, which way Canada (and member states) voted.

I appreciate the time you have taken to learn about the OPCW, its function, and where it is located- having prior knowledge of the organization, my request wasn't to learn about it from your office but to find out why Canada would help remove Mr. Bustani who has been dedicated to his work for the elimination of chemical weapons in the world.

I do not share, nor do many Canadians, and citizens of the member states involved, your confidence that Canada and the member states that supported the U.S. motion, have acted responsibly. Nor will Canadians be convinced that Mr. Graham acted in the best interest of the OPCW, until he can explain how Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of the majority of the member states.

Financial records indicate that the agency wasn't wasting money- given that the OPCW had limited funds because the U.S. refused to pay their fair share (as they often do with international organizations and act independently on global issues while forcing other countries to vote with them) Mr. Bustani signed up 60-odd countries during his post and was preparing to bring Iraq into the organization in order to inspect for WMD's - during a crucial time when the United States is declaring WAR on Iraq.

What more would he have needed to do to gain the confidence of a majority of states?

Given Mr. Bustani's ability to treat each member countries equally, and his talent for collecting new signatories, as well as encouraging the United States, which has refused to have their facilities inspected, who does Mr. Graham think can do a better job as director of this agency? Is there a specific candidate in mind and why would this new person be a better director general of the OPCW?

These are very important questions, and Mr. Woods, while you are responding for Mr. Graham, I hope you will seriously consider what is happening here and why Canada should act independently of the United States. History has shown that Super Powers that refuse to participate in global rules and act to change them, have had drastic effects on countries and their people - Canada should not be a partner or encourage such crimes.

I hope Minister Graham or you will be able to answer the basic questions asked in this letter.

Thank you once again for your time,

Sincerely,

Heather R. Tickie-I am enclosing the speech made by Mr. Bustani during the Special Member States meeting to reiterate the kind of man he was and the integrity he held during pressure from the time the United States called for the "no confidence" vote.

posted 18 June 2002 03:24 PM
Let me mix it up a bit (leave out things put them in different places) to see if I can improve on the letter. And be extra proud of yourself that you didn't once refer to him as a child abuser - now THAT is anger.

quote: Dear Mr. Woods,

Thank you for responding to my letter in a timely fashion. Your letter indicates that Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a large number of States Parties, but doesn't attempt to explain why. OR EVEN WHOSE CONFIDENCE. HERE WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO ASK IF IT WAS THE CHEMICAL COMPANIES THEMSELVES WHO LACKED CONFIDENCE IN HIM - EVEN MAKE AN ANALOGY TO HOW BUSTANI COMPARES TO THAT OTTAWA EDITOR IZZY JUST LET GO BECAUSE IZZY LACKED CONFIDENCE IN THE GUYS PRO LIBERAL STANCE.

CONTINUE WITH THE CONFIDENCE THEME ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE GUY WAS TRYING TO DO.

Mr. Bustani was actively seeking two things: the inclusion of Iraq into the treaty (and thus the deployment of OPCW inspectors into Iraq) and the equal application of OPCW rules to all signatories INCLUDING THE US. the US was uneasy with allowing foreign weapons inspectors (officers of the OPCW) access to it's facilities.

POINT ONE

Bustani-sponsored initiatives to take place. Iraq's inclusion in the OPCW takes away the US' primary claim (for war) that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.

POINT TWO

I do agree WITH MR. B that Canada should remain vigilant against the scourge of chemical weapons. I question whether removing Mr. Bustani from his post, at the behest of a single client state, serves to further the reduction of chemical weapons. INFACT IT DOES THE OPPOSITE --

NOT A LACK OF CONFIDENCE BUT TOTAL CONFIDENCE THAT HE WOULD ACHIEVE THESE GOALS IF LEFT IN PLACE.

Mr. Graham has shown that the federal Liberal government places higher importance on international political pragmatism than on any concerns over chemical weapons disarmament and control. MULROONEY ANALOGY WOULD BE NICE HERE

I CONCEED THAT many States Parties were afraid that the OPCW would collapse without US support. bullying tactics on this issue, I can pragmatically understand why Mr. Graham needed to vote against Mr. Bustani.

Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a number of States Parties, what you really mean is that THIS IS SILLY BECAUSE IF MR.B WAS REALLY INCOMPETENT HE WOULD STILL BE AT HIS POSITION. YOU SHOULD CLOSE WITH CONFIDENCE NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE US KNEW WHAT HIS INTENTIONS WERE AND WERE FULLY CONFIDENT THAT HE WOULD REACH HIS GOALS IF NOT STOPPED.

Please be honest with me in future correspondence.

-------

THIS CAN BE STATED IN HALF A SENTENCE

The US was one of very few parties uneasy with Bustani's leadership, as earlier votes attest, and thus attempted to scuttle the organisation by threatening to refuse to pay it's share of the bills. This threat (which could have caused the collapse of the OPCW) frightened other countries into supporting the US motion.

THIS JUST SAYS THAT BG DOES NOT HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR YOU

Mr. Bill Graham can rest assured that he has not convinced me either a) that his decision to oust Mr. Bustani was the right decision or b) that his response to my concerns was honest.

posted 04 July 2002 12:54 PM
Thank you very very much for that link, Arch. What a great article.

I was thinking about this story just yesterday morning, as I stared at Bill Graham in the Grope, doing his best imitation of a noble independent thinker, standing up to the U.S. on the issue of the ICC. All I could think was, "If you will do this for the ICC, why not the OPCBW????" I mean, why? I do not understand this.

As the plot sickens, this character becomes interesting:

quote: Bustani traces the shift to the influence of several hawkish officials in the Bush State Department, particularly Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton.

Bolton, who has in the past argued that the U.S. should exit the United Nations, was also one of the administration's most vocal critics of the International Criminal Court. His staunch opposition to virtually every major recent arms control initiative -- including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- and his enthusiastic endorsement of Washington's problem-plagued Star Wars missile defense system led Ian Williams of Foreign Policy in Focus to argue that putting Bolton in charge of disarmament is akin to letting "a pyromaniac have the run of a fireworks factory."

Note also that some unnamed State Department official, dispensing the usual vagaries as excuses for the U.S. attack on Bustani, commits a classic solecism: "This move ... was not precipitous." The idiot means "precipitate." (precipitous = steep, as a precipice; precipitate = hasty, rash; solecism = blunder in grammar or usage)

quote: "We would be very happy if Iraq were to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. We believe in the universality of the convention." However, he says that the OPCW should not be miscontrued as a substitue for existing United Nations weapons inspections efforts.

Why not? They are qualified to do the work, probably more qualified than spies pretending to be weapons inspectors.

quote: "This wasn't a step that the U.S. government wanted to take," says this official. "We gave Bustani various opportunities to do the right thing. This move -- which was approved by Secretary of State Powell and the National Security Council -- was not precipitous."

What exactly was the right thing? Consulting the US administration before every move the OPCW made? Please.

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 08 July 2002 02:52 PM
Woo-friggin'-hoo! Where's the Rabble prize patrol? I pretty sure I win something for finally being annoying enough to elicit a response from (Bill Graham). And apparently, my MP is not totally useless either. When sufficiently deluged with intelligent, but biting email (*pats self on back*) she will pass the buck on with blinding speed. Sadly, I've learned that her limit is actually only two email (on this topic anyway).

***************************[Edited for my privacy and to note that today's date is July 8, 2002]

A-14475-02 In reply to your e-mail of April 30, 2002

Dear Mr. *******:

Your Member of Parliament, Ms. ******** ********, has forwarded to me youre-mail of April 30, 2002, concerning Canada's vote for Mr. José Bustani asDirector-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(OPCW).

Canada has always been and remains an ardent supporter of the OPCW. Basedin The Hague, Netherlands, the OPCW is the administrative body responsiblefor the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It exists as anindependent entity, completely separate from the United Nations.

As you know, a special Conference of States Parties was recently convened inThe Hague to consider whether Mr. Bustani should continue asDirector-General of the OPCW. As a result of the vote taken on April 22,2002, the Conference decided overwhelmingly that he should be replaced.This result was anticipated as Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of alarge number of States Parties.

Canada decided to support the removal of Mr. Bustani because it was the onlyrealistic way that the crisis surrounding the leadership of the OPCW couldbe quickly and effectively resolved. It was Canada's assessment that a longand protracted debate over the leadership would have seriously damaged thisimportant organization. The decisive result of the vote demonstrated thatmost countries shared this view.

Canada worked hard towards a satisfactory solution and considered that achange in leadership was essential and in the best interest of the OPCW.Preserving the integrity of, and strengthening, this important organizationwas our overriding concern.

You may be assured that Canada remains firmly committed to a strong andviable OPCW, and to its efforts to rid the world of the scourge of chemicalweapons.

Sincerely,Bill Graham

c.c. Ms. ******* *********, M.P.

**************************

It's also IMHO worth noting the irony of the last paragraph:

quote:Canada worked hard towards a satisfactory solution and considered that achange in leadership was essential and in the best interest of the OPCW.Preserving the integrity of, and strengthening, this important organizationwas our overriding concern.

This from a man of the party of Jean Chretien.

I considering a response, but I can't manage to edit out the phrase, "Your letter makes me have to puke," and that just wouldn't be good manners.

posted 08 July 2002 03:32 PM
Thanks, NDB, for going to this trouble, and for posting the Honourable Minister's "reply." Vom-worthy, indeed.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged